Spy School: David Loftus

The school district was absolutely wrong not to have notified students and parents that the webcams on the laptops it lent out to them could be remotely operated. Superintendent Christopher McGinley has already admitted as much in a letter released Friday: “There was no explicit notification that the laptop contained the security software," he said in his letter of Friday. "This notice should have been given and we regret that was not done.”

I think somebody in the administration must have gotten a little overzealous about keeping an eye on the kids in a fairly affluent suburb of Philadelphia, and took a step or two too far. Sure, the school district is responsible for the safety and behavior of students on school grounds, but when they are home, kids return to the responsibility of their parents. Trying to protect school property is no justification for invading the privacy of citizens in their homes.

There are a couple of other things in this story that don’t add up. One, why did someone turn on the webcam in the Robbins’ home if the laptop had not been reported stolen or missing (which I presume must have been the case, since I haven’t seen it reported anywhere)? Two, why did the assistant principal go to the kid about his supposed drug-related activities, unless the grownup wasn’t sure what he’d seen? If he had actually thought the boy was dealing drugs, he should have gone to the parents or directly to law enforcement.

It sounds to me as if the school district dropped the ball in any number of ways (in not informing students and parents that the webcams could be activated and used remotely, in overextending its control over the students) and it is in very hot water now -- deservedly so. The district is now looking at a federal class-action lawsuit, an FBI investigation, and a grand jury subpoena.